"Earliness" of Pali Suttas vs Chinese Agamas

Greetings.

The “traditional” story is that the Pali Suttas we have now are basically passed down straight from the first council. It seems to me that most scholars dispute that idea to some degree, but there seems to be a tendency to still regard the Pali Suttas as somehow more “central” than, for example, the Chinese Agamas.

Is this simply because the Theravāda Tripiṭaka is the only complete canon we have? Do we know for sure that there was a continuity of doctrine between the monks in Sri Lanka who wrote down the canon for the first time in 100 BC, Buddhaghosa a few centuries later, and those even later who would’ve written the manuscripts which we’ve used to put together the Pali canon? Do we have any substantial reason, apart from perhaps their own claims, to think that their doctrines did not significantly change over time since 100 BCE?

2 Likes

The most substantial reason is the Chinese Agamas. When read comparatively it is immediately apparent that more or less all the basic doctrine is more or less identical between these 2 bodies of literature that must diverge at least as early as the 4th century ce.

The other reasons are the Sanskrit, the Gilgit, the Gandhari, etc etc, again and again we find parallels, from the 1st century onwards, that are readily identifiable as not just the same doctrine, but the same suttas, often very close to word for word.

There even appears reason to think that some of the commentarial works in the Pali canon, like the Netti, are very old, as 1st and 2nd century Gandhari works of the same style and techniques have been found.

The reason that many may prefer the Pali to the Chinese is that 1. for English speakers Pali (and Sanskrit) is much easier to learn than Chinese and 2. Pali is a middle Indian Prakrit that is at least much more like the language the Buddha and his community spoke than Chinese.

Of course all the literatures in all the languages are important and must be examined in parallel if we are to have a clear idea about what is universal to Early Buddhism and what is merely a feature of a particular school or tradition.

I have yet to come across any significant doctrinal point in the Pali that is not repeated in the Chinese.

Metta

6 Likes

It’s the one that’s been studied and translated over and over for a couple centuries now, and it has a living tradition training people to read its texts. So, there is basically an anchoring bias at play. It’s rather frustrating sometimes. We’ve reached the point now that people are translating Pali to argue for revising the meaning of words whose meaning was well established a long time ago. Meanwhile, Chinese sources that would be (sometimes) startling if people could read them collect dust.

No. Not at all. Indian religious texts of all kinds evolved continuously over time. So, it should actually be a given that the texts at 100 BC were different than at 400 CE or 1500 CE. It’s just the way it was. Indian religious literature was updated and edited continuously, for the most part. Buddhists generally made their texts larger and larger. This fact means that Chinese translations from 400 CE could be a better snapshot of the older version of texts than one that has been a living tradition up to the present day.

It’s not Theravadins vs. Chinese Agamas. People often make this mistake of thinking “Chinese Agamas” is one Buddhist tradition. They represent four different Buddhist traditions: Two Sarvastivadin traditions, the Dharmaguptakas, and an unknown tradition. When we compare Sarvastivadin Agamas against Theravada Nikayas, they are very similar and parallel. Nothing seemed to change (much). They were very closely related, so this is not surprising. Same is true of the Dharmaguptakas, though we can see the expansion of DN against DA in that case, and the Sarvastivada DA in Sanskrit was even larger.

Then there is EA which is a gold mine to early Buddhist studies because it’s both old and not closely related to the Theravada or Sarvastivada traditions. We actually can see how much they had changed their texts when comparing them to EA parallels. It’s remarkable sometimes.

And it goes beyond the Agamas. There’s a huge amount of Avadana material, including the stories about the Buddha’s early teaching career from mutiple traditions. A commentary on the Dharmapada. A couple different Dharmapadas. All that Abhidharma translated not just by Xuanzang but others as well. And then there all of those Vinayas. It’s simply a massive amount of material. Locked up in Chinese because everyone wants to learn Pali or Sanskrit instead. The people who do learn Buddhist Chinese are typically not interested in any of this material. They are Mahayanists, typically. So, we are stuck with a few people like myself and @vimalanyani doing the heavy lifting.

16 Likes

Is there any resource that one can study so that after studying it, one can decipher the Classical Chinese used in Agama? I can understand 白话, but struggle with 文言文。

Thank you

And we are eternally grateful for it!

@pather I would just second everything @cdpatton has said, he is a font of substantive and insightful knowledge on this topic.

2 Likes

Thank you; this confirms some of my suspicions.

Then there is EA which is a gold mine to early Buddhist studies because it’s both old and not closely related to the Theravada or Sarvastivada traditions. We actually can see how much they had changed their texts when comparing them to EA parallels. It’s remarkable sometimes.

Regarding this, do we know that the EA (Ekottara Agama) is older? I’ve heard that certain Mahayana influences are detectable in it. I suppose that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s later in origin. But even if it were older, the presence of Mahayana influence suggests that it isn’t necessarily more representative of the earliest tradition compared to the other Agamas, correct?

[I found this post that discusses the topic, but if you have anything to add I would be grateful. I also found this article.)

2 Likes

I would also recommend checking out EA2, it is a partial translation of an Ekkottra that is even earlier than EA.

In fact, all the An Shigao translations are probably worth careful study;

T13
T14
T31
T32
T36
T48
T57
T98
T112
T150A
T101?

check out

https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:eacf5f0c-8632-4087-ab4f-23f67b30247d/files/mb2e0e26865aa8b01047145704c8056dd

for an excellent discussion of this important figure.

1 Like

It isn’t necessarily but are you saying the presence would make you doubt that it represents an earlier tradition? Why? Could it be the anchoring bias that cdpatton pointed out? :pray:

What some people consider ‘Mahāyāna’ are actually pan-Buddhist / non-sectarian ideas that developed around the time of and post-Ashoka essentially. For example, jātaka and avadāna literature, which include a whole range of symbols, language and ideals. Including things like the idea that someone makes a vow to become a future sammāsambuddha. These are assumed in prajñāpāramitā sūtras, for example. However, the ideas are not ‘Mahāyāna’ — they’re just a general trend that developed in Buddhism which included forms of Buddhism that emphasize the bodhisattva path.

Another one is a particular way of talking about emptiness, which seems common to several Buddhist schools (such as in the Theravādin Niddesa, Visuddhimagga, some Sarvāstivādin SA sutras, etc.), but which nonetheless seems to likely have evolved from an earlier way of discussing emptiness.

It’s relatively well-established that these evolved, as well as some sense of how and why they evolved, from earlier Buddhist ideas that are pre-sectarian. Just like the concept of inventing a lightbulb necessitates that there be access to electricity. Humans manipulating electricity is structurally prior to humans making electric self-driving cars.

However, the precise dating of all of this is uncertain, and the borders can blend together at certain points. IIRC, it’s consensus that the EA was edited later with additions in China. Charles might have more resources for that.

This I interpret as a purported statement of fact. A statement of knowledge. Is that what you intend?

Again, I interpret this as a purported statement of fact.

This appears to be a purported hypothesis involving probability.

I don’t know what you intend with relatively well-established do you mean to purport a statement of fact? Well-established could be interpreted as a proof of knowledge.

Isn’t that quite an understatement? You’re talking about hypothesis, conjecture, purported statements of fact and then talking about dating these? If purported statements of fact are ‘well-established’ aka known then I can see where ‘dating’ would be involved. However, dating a hypothesis that has not been well-established looks like piling hypothesis upon speculation.

__

Like most of these threads I see what could be hypothesis, conjecture, being mingled with purported statements of fact, probability, and so on. It is hard to safeguard the truth with such mingling.

:pray:

1 Like

I don’t know of any Indian Buddhist sect which denied the jātaka and avadāna-style literature with their presentation of the bodhisattva ideal. Do you know of one?

In terms of the dating around King Ashoka, this is based partly on things such as archeology (stupas, inscriptions, etc.) and written documents found, and otherwise based on scholars who analyze the history and development of ideas and tropes in literature. I’m offering generalized statements about the picture that knowledgable scholars give which I’m familiar with.

The Theravāda school accepts the jātakas, avadānas, bodhisattva path, etc. I put ‘Mahāyāna’ in brackets because it is a vague idea, but one often contrasted with schools like Theravāda or other Abhidharma schools like Sarvāstivāda. Are you saying it’s not a fact that there was a general trend amongst Buddhist schools, even ones not often considered Mahāyāna, to discuss these ideas? Are you suggesting we know absolutely nothing whatsoever about anything except the randomized contents of Buddhist documents available now? And that even still we know absolutely nothing about what the schools that preserved and commented on those documents thought?

I haven’t done extensive research, but what we see is something that evolves amongst schools that took the sutras as authoritative in their commentaries and abhidharma texts, and are found only in limited cases of sutras. By a scanning of the available evidence, it seems the idea evolved but relatively early on. It is a hypothesis.

‘Relative’ to what we can know, ‘well’ in terms of proportion of evidence leaning one way or the other, ‘established’ by people who research and discuss these points with some degree of rigor.

Scientists have pretty good ideas about evolution or the development of human culture and society, but some of it is also (AFAIK) still very vague in terms of particular dates or specifics. It’s possible for there to be reasonable trends and developments in a body of literature and religious movement and yet not have clear dates. It doesn’t need to be absolutely certain or sheer skepticism.

I hope that is somewhat clarifying. I’m just giving conversational, general statements about trends among scholars of Buddhism. This isn’t an academic article, and so I didn’t substantiate it to the level of one.

They are not 漢傳佛教言文/Buddhist Chinese。

1 Like

Okay, it seems it was a purported statement of fact. You know that the ideas in question are dated as originating or developing "around the time of and post-Ashoka." What is this knowledge based upon? What some scholars believe after analysis I suppose.

Well, I don’t know the same. I haven’t directly witnessed it or seen irrefutable proof that it is so. From what I can tell the conclusive and decisive statement of knowledge is not based on actual knowledge, but rather conjecture based on the beliefs of others.

I’m saying I don’t know where and when the ideas developed or if they date as far back as the Teacher, from before, after, or contemporaneous. For that matter, I don’t know whether the Teacher was a mythical person or a real person, or many people that have been drawn into a composite, or … well, I don’t know much of anything at all. I have beliefs and hypothesis and conjecture that I like to think are well motivated, but I don’t know what I don’t know.

I’m saying I don’t know much of anything at all and from what I can tell a lot of other people don’t know much either, but parade beliefs as knowledge. Lots of people like to feign hypothesis, conjecture, theories and so on for proof/knowledge/fact and I generally try to decline to participate.

Sure, there does seem to be no end of ideas, beliefs, conjecture, hypothesis, motivated reasoning, and so on and quite a few who will describe such as fact and proof and knowledge and more’s the pity.

“Trends among scholars of Buddhism,” doesn’t sound like fact/knowledge/proof to me. Sounds like shifting beliefs and shifting opinion. :pray:

1 Like

I came across the following in this Wikipedia article:

The Chinese Samyuktagama is an early version of Sarvastivada texts, which was brought from Sri Lanka by Faxian and translated by the eminent Indian monk Guṇabhadra (394–468). It is the only one of the northern four Agamas to be originally written in Sanskrit. The southern Pali version of Samyutta Nikaya retains the original Theravada texts from 2300 years ago, making it the earliest version among the extant Buddhist texts.

That doesn’t make much sense to me given that all I’ve read seems to indicate that only the Vibhajjavāda (AKA Theravāda) became established in Sri Lanka, and their texts should have all been in Pali, not Sanskrit, since 100 BC. Is there anywhere I can read more on this? The article does not give a citation for that particular point.

I can’t find any evidence outside Theravādins’ own claims that the canon was in fact written down in 100 BC, let alone preserved largely intact since them. “Archaeology of Early Buddhism” by Lars Fogelin says:

As for the Pali Canon of Sri Lanka, it was extensively redacted in the fifth or sixth centuries A.D. (Bechert 1978; Collins 1990; Trainor 1997 ).

Is there not a bit too much faith being placed in those monks, who we now know to have misrepresented the truth significantly on at least one occasion?

The traditional Theravadin account provided by the Mahavamsa stands in contrast to the writings of the Chinese Buddhist monk Faxian (Ch. 法顯), who journeyed to India and Sri Lanka in the early 5th century (between 399 and 414 CE). He recorded that the Mahavihara was not only intact, but housed 3000 monks.

If it was intentional, then painting themselves as oppressed victims in the past might’ve served as their justification for the following:

The trend of Abhayagiri Vihara being the dominant Buddhist sect changed in the 12th century CE, when the Mahāvihāra gained the political support of King Parakkamabāhu I (1153–1186 CE), and completely abolished the Abhayagiri and Jetavana traditions.

Though the chronicle says that he reunited the Sangha, this expression glosses over the fact that what he did was to abolish the Abhayagiri and Jetavana Nikāyas. He laicized many monks from the Mahā Vihāra Nikāya, all the monks in the other two – and then allowed the better ones among the latter to become novices in the now ‘unified’ Sangha, into which they would have in due course to be reordained.

1 Like

From what I can gather, the oldest surviving manuscripts of the pali canon are many centuries after this. There is no proof that the surviving manuscripts are the same as the ones that were said to have been written down many centuries earlier.

Lots of arguments and conjecture can be made that what we have now is the same as what was said to be written down in first century, but I think those will remain arguments and conjecture and not knowledge. It is possible someone will find a surviving copy of the canon that can be dated to the first century, but so far that has not happened as far as I’m aware.

:pray:

1 Like

After first being transmitted orally for at least a century and then written down on palm-leafs.
I believe there is no such thing as an original or even non-sectarian text.
In addition, there are blatant signs of heavy redaction and development over the course of centuries IMO

I guess I should add my arguments for the latter:

  • The Suttas seem to be roughly divided into the same different doctrinal views making up today’s opposing schools of Theravada Buddhism;
  • The philosphic depth and coherence of some of these texts is unlikely to have originated with a single or even a few individuals;
  • The theorized steps in the philosophical development of these texts can be linked and mirrored to contemporary discussions in ancient philosphy.

Just google academic articles for research on the Samyuktāgama. There are plenty. I don’t know who told you that only “Vibhajjavāda” was established in Sri Lanka. It was a rich country with various monasteries and did not exist in isolation despite, yes, being an island.

There is the quite large “Samyukta-Āgama Studies” by Bhikkhu Anālayo and the even larger compilation of articles “Research on the Samyukta-Āgama” edited by Bhikkhunī Dhammadinnā. Rod Bucknell has an article called “The Historical Relationship Between the Two Chinese Saṃyuktāgama Translations.” There is “The Sectarian Affiliation of Two Chinese Saṃyuktāgamas,” by Satoshi Hiraoka. That’s more than enough to start learning lots about that particular collection.

2 Likes

Do you have an example of what such knowledge could even look like?

Do you ever reference things which happened more then a day ago as factual or having occurred? Do you know that the universe and all of its contents including all memories and associations and all accumulated knowledge didn’t pop into existence some time yesterday? Could you demonstrate that this isn’t the case beyond sheer conjecture?

I would say there are degrees and as human beings who live in a complex, fuzzy world, our criteria for discussing things are pragmatic and flexible and able to adapt to circumstances.

Didn’t I do that?

If someone does find such a surviving copy and it matches the current pali canon and can be dated using various scientific dating techniques I’d be much more willing to call it knowledge that:

The southern Pali version of Samyutta Nikaya retains the original Theravada texts from 2300 years ago, making it the earliest version among the extant Buddhist texts.

… rather than conjecture.

I’m happy to have a conversation about epistomology and what qualifies as knowledge versus belief and so on, but I don’t think I’m out on a limb stating that the above is conjecture and has not been proven in any kind of sense that I’d consider the word “proven” applicable towards. Of course, others mileage may vary. :joy:

“If a person has faith, they preserve truth by saying, ‘Such is my faith.’ But they don’t yet come to the categorical conclusion: ‘This is the only truth, anything else is futile.’ If a person has a belief … or has received an oral transmission … or has a reasoned reflection about something … or has accepted a view after contemplation, they preserve truth by saying, ‘Such is the view I have accepted after contemplation.’ But they don’t yet come to the categorical conclusion: ‘This is the only truth, anything else is futile.’ That’s how the preservation of truth is defined, Bhāradvāja. I describe the preservation of truth as defined in this way. This is essentially the standard used in references today: one should accurately represent one’s sources.But this is not yet the awakening to the truth.”
MN 95

:pray: